Poll: Nuclear power and You
- Thread starter Kollega
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I going to do something which I rarely do, which is compliment the French (inorite?).
The majority of French energy is generated by nuclear facilities, and has proven to be safe and stable, so any argument concerning the evils of nuclear power should look at what has happened there.
And I would love to see America take a cue from France's example....
Now I shall go and try and figure out how I managed to compliment them.
The majority of French energy is generated by nuclear facilities, and has proven to be safe and stable, so any argument concerning the evils of nuclear power should look at what has happened there.
And I would love to see America take a cue from France's example....
Now I shall go and try and figure out how I managed to compliment them.
Speaking as someone who did their work experience in a nuclear power station, I'm absolutely for it.
Pros.
-Cheap energy
-Relatively clean
-Provides technical jobs that pay well
-Looks awesome
Cons.
-As with all good things, idiots can fuck it up.
Total opposition to nuclear power only makes sense when there are much better, immediately viable, alternatives. Which there aren't.
Pros.
-Cheap energy
-Relatively clean
-Provides technical jobs that pay well
-Looks awesome
Cons.
-As with all good things, idiots can fuck it up.
Total opposition to nuclear power only makes sense when there are much better, immediately viable, alternatives. Which there aren't.
... lucky git.bodyklok said:
I would have loved that.
A warehouse is not exactly what I had in mind.
Direct Pollution means that when the energy is being produced, then it pollutes. Like coal. Now, a different term would work better, but hey, use that brain in your head to think it up for us.Nimbus said:
Ah, Three Mile Island. The thing that happened in the 70's? The incident that on average, exposed locals to the equivalent of a single chest X Ray? Where the maximum exposure by anyone was equal to a third of the radiation they would have gotten that year anyways? The incident where there was no conclusive data of any negative health effects suffered by anyone? How much less of a "disaster" then that would we end up having with 30 years worth of improved technology?RobCoxxy said:
You are forgetting two other pros of nuclear power: delivering nuclear isotopes required for CAT and PET-scans in hospitals and that it's a great energy source for space travel.
Anyway, I think it certainly is a viable and clean energy source but it's not perfect, mostly because of the nuclear waste (meltdown is basically impossible in a modern reactor and I'm certainly not afraid of terrorists having the rescources neccesary for using it for a nuclear weapon) and the fact that Uranium supplies are limited.
Anyway, I think it certainly is a viable and clean energy source but it's not perfect, mostly because of the nuclear waste (meltdown is basically impossible in a modern reactor and I'm certainly not afraid of terrorists having the rescources neccesary for using it for a nuclear weapon) and the fact that Uranium supplies are limited.
I'm late.
Everything has been said allready, but just to condense a bit:
Nuclear power is a win.
No pollution, cheap, etc.
However radwaste is a significant problem.
The amount of waste can be decreased with more efficient breeder reactors and
using Thorium instead of uranium or Plutonium.
Recycling techniques and safer stores are on the way too.
Fission power is a temporary energy production form, though.
Fusion will save us all.
Everything has been said allready, but just to condense a bit:
Nuclear power is a win.
No pollution, cheap, etc.
However radwaste is a significant problem.
The amount of waste can be decreased with more efficient breeder reactors and
using Thorium instead of uranium or Plutonium.
Recycling techniques and safer stores are on the way too.
Fission power is a temporary energy production form, though.
Fusion will save us all.
There is a tiny-teeny possibility of a meltdown - say,if earthquake hits the station,but would anyone be that dumb and build a nuclear station in seismoactive region? So yeah,one thing to be afraid of is terrorism,but if nuclear plants are guarded well,it's not a threat either. So you're basically right.Xanadu84 said:
And yes,i've heard about remarkable durability of containers in which nuclear waste is transported.
Nuclear energy is the best possible option. The way we seal the waste away IS SECURE. The grapphite-carbon-titanium-copper containers are buried in thousands of tons of solid rock. The only thing that could get it out of there is the Earth imploding.
Nuclear energy is the cheapest and most convenient way to produce electricity. The risks are vastly overhyped. Tshernobyl, they say. Well, if we are not Soviets and decide to "try how much the reactor can take", we'll be fine. The newer the plant, the safer it is.
Nuclear energy is the cheapest and most convenient way to produce electricity. The risks are vastly overhyped. Tshernobyl, they say. Well, if we are not Soviets and decide to "try how much the reactor can take", we'll be fine. The newer the plant, the safer it is.
I never said it was a disaster. Just saying it was an "incident". There was also one in Scotland, Windscale. All fuckups. None quite as serious as Chernobyl, and you're a c*nt for thinking I'd put Three Mile Island on the same tier of seriousness. The guy was making a "nuclear power am bad" point, and only mentioned one incident.Xanadu84 said:
Just saying, he needed more ammunition.
Wait,what? If you talk about me,i'm making a "nuclear power's risks are acceptable" point. I've never heard of Three Mile Island or Windscale fuckups,probably because very little harm was done. One and only true fuck-up with a nuclear energy is Chernobyl,and that station had it coming from the start.RobCoxxy said: